If theres a heaven....
texan
03-20-2001, 05:14 PM
Heep, that is one scary mofo you are listenting to.
First of all, his whole premise is entirely WRONG. Wrong to the point that it's hard to read this doctor's paper when the initial contentions are false.
"Four Basic Questions in Life
Now, how would you answer the four great questions of life? Well, that depends upon your world-view. If the evolution story is true, who am I? Well, if evolution is true, we are nothing important that is for sure. Actually, you are just a bit of protoplasm that washed up on the beach. As a matter of fact, you are part of the problem because you are one of the polluters of the environment and the more of you we can get rid of, the better. Right? Where did I come from? Well, if evolution is true, you came from a cosmic burp about 20 billion years ago. Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Well, if evolution is true, there is no purpose to life so you might as well have fun; if it feels good, do it. Get all the gusto you can get, you only go around once in life, you know? Where am I going when I die? Well, if evolution is true, you are just going to the grave and you are going to get recycled into a worm or a plant. But the Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” "
First off, evolution makes no claims as to your importance in the scheme of things, your basic position in the universe, or your morality. It also lays no claims to the afterlife. It's clear from reading the first two pages that not only has this Dr. Hovind blown evolutionary theory well out of it's true proportions, but is claiming that the Devil is responsible for it's formulation. These are the ridiculous meanderings of a Christian who's personal beliefs in something make the evolutionary theory into a great devil (simply becuase it poses alternate methods for the formulation of our species). Evolutionary theory is no more than an honest attempt at explaining our biological origins through observation and application of the scientific method; a thought process which I might mention has enabled this Dr. to create his electronic articles in the first place. Darwin's theory lays no claims to the metaphysical, the spiritual, or the theological aspects of life. It is, in any rational person's view, simply a theory to explain the origins of ourselves, and does not prove or disprove the existence of God. In fact it doesn't even take a stab at where the first life came from, that is something other theories are tryin to deal with.
"Macro evolution would say the dog and the rose had a common ancestor and the common ancestor was a rock. You wait long enough, the rock will turn into a dog and a rose"
No, actually that is entirely false. A rock is a rock, although it is true that a sedimentary rock can eventually be reconstituted into a metamorpich rock. But a rock is a rock, and whether it's a diamond formed under extreme pressure and time, or sandstone squished by only a bit of pressure over a bit of time, it's still a rock. DNA however, in it's infinite varation, CAN describe something as simple as a one celled organism or even oursleves. This is FACT, not evolution. The only contention is how this is brought about. Grace of God, or evolutionary theory?
Every point this guy argues is easily dismissable except for Big Bang theory (which is a double tough thing to gather evidence for, and which many scientists, even evolutionary theorists, deny). Which of course, has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory, or any theory pertaining to the origins of life on this planet. You notice he has only one little paragraph in the first article concerning fossils, and makes absolutely no logical rebuttal or explanation for dinosaur existence. If they Earth is indeed only 4400 years old, why doesn't anyone remember them? There are existing cultures in the world pre-dating that figure by thousands of years, how does he explain that?
As for the second article, I only got through the first page before realizing this Doctor's arguments were based on very weak and incomplete science catering only to those who don't know anything about what he talks on, and don't want to learn more about it from a credible scientist. As for the conservation of angular momentum theory, that only applies to larger than atomic objects functioning on the space-time continuim that throw off debree, and who's debree isn't magnetically charged. However space-time didn't exist before Big Bang theory (it can't exist without mass), virtually all subatomic particles have magnetism and attraction variation (which allows for their interaction to change rotational direction), and conservation of angular momentum theory only holds true in relativistic physics. Quantum physics was responsible for the formulation of all mass in the universe; physics pertaining to atomic particles larger than the atom do not apply here.
On his mention that the timeline for homo sapiens' spread must have started about 4400 years ago, well in fact he's almost right. Humans exist in such numbers because at some point about 6000-7000 years ago, we lost our nomadic ways and began to farm and raise animals. Once we took the food and shelter equation of existence into our own control, the population started to grow exponentially and hasn't stopped since. Before that, it's well known that only about 15-30 humans could live in an area of 25 square miles (this number is the limit based upon natural food sources existing within that area, and the miles part is the limit because our ancestors only traveled on foot). And this says nothing of the fact that humans haven't lived here for billions of years, so the timeline for modern culture and populace is indeed much shorter than 4 billion years. Again, he's not really saying anything about why the Earth MUST be younger than that, he's just mixing up fact with fiction (like the Devil does, according to him) to make things sound bad for the scientists. Oh and here's another qoute from our beloved doctor...
"So, let’s look at a few more facts from science here. The galaxies are spinning. They are turning around. But the stars in the middle of the galaxies are going faster than the stars at the outside, which means if the galaxies were billions of years old, they would have lost their spiral shape and yet all of them are spiral shaped galaxies. So if their trying to tell you that stars are billions of years old, they are simply mistaken they cannot possibly be, they had to be created."
Not true at all, there are three different and common types of galaxies. In fact, the sprial galaxy is not the most common form. There are sprial, elliptical, and irregular shaped galaxies. Most actually fall into the irregular section, and guess what, they don't spin. In fact, it's becoming more and more clear that galaxy formation type has a lot to do with black holes, and spiral galaxies are formed by having a black hole in the center of the galaxy. Our milky way galaxy has one.
All this crap, about thre planets cooling (which is fact, and the reason Earth's surface is no longer plagued by constant volcanic eruptions), about Saturn's rings (which are formed from smashed up satellites, and is indeed becoming finer and finer over the milenia; but nothing stated disproves the thoeries as to how and when they were formed), about the drifting Moon (where he claims the Moon's proximity to the Earth makes life on land imposible a billion years ago; hey no kidding bud, but all very acient life was sea dwelling and wouldn't have been too troubled by the tides), and even about the Earth's slowing rotation. Hello, this guys doesn't know much about astronomy does he? The Earth's rotation is slowing because the Moon is getting farther away. The Moon's influence on Earth is profound even at it's current distance, and is in fact responsible for our lives on this planet. Without the influence of the Moon, Earth's rotational axis would not be stable, weather patterns would literally become cataclismic, and yes, we would not have any place to reliably live or find food. But for Earth's rotation to have ever stabilized, the Moon had to have been MUCH closer than it is now. And as it slowly creeps away, it does cause the Earth's rotation to slow. But not by anywhere near his estimate (a leap second every year and a half in his article is asking you to assume that means the day really does get longer by 1000th of a second every time around). This may have been printed in Astronomy magazine back in '92, but current observation reveals that about 2000 years ago the day was about 2 seconds longer than it is now. Again, we are talking about geological events and planetary motion here, which occurs only over a REALLY long time period.
Alright, I should shutup now. The point here is that I can easily debate and explain the things he doesn't accurately do (as in boy does that article need a re-write!), and I am no scientist. It would in fact only take about two years of univeristy study to realize these arguments are formed from the table scraps of modern scientific knowledge, and cite either innacurate or completely false information (I believe some has been "doctored" up for this article) to further his creationist belief. I also find it amusing that a Christian would spend so much time proselytizing that his Faith is True while using science to disprove science, and therefore uphold his world view. I ask this doctor, why is it so important to believe the Bible is a factual account of history? Does it make the Word any more believable, or lend credit to it's lessons? The nature of God and Man has nothing to do with Genesis's first verse, and you certainly don't need to take the stories of the Bible literally to become a devout Christian, or even to accept God's grace and enter the kingdom of Heaven. So why write all that when none of it truly pertains to your faith? Just know this, your faith is not supported by this argument, it is supported by your acceptance of God's Grace. This man's arguments appear to be poorly formed, poorly executed, and wholely ineffective if it's conversion he's trying to bring about. Historical fact has NOTHING to do with God.
First of all, his whole premise is entirely WRONG. Wrong to the point that it's hard to read this doctor's paper when the initial contentions are false.
"Four Basic Questions in Life
Now, how would you answer the four great questions of life? Well, that depends upon your world-view. If the evolution story is true, who am I? Well, if evolution is true, we are nothing important that is for sure. Actually, you are just a bit of protoplasm that washed up on the beach. As a matter of fact, you are part of the problem because you are one of the polluters of the environment and the more of you we can get rid of, the better. Right? Where did I come from? Well, if evolution is true, you came from a cosmic burp about 20 billion years ago. Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Well, if evolution is true, there is no purpose to life so you might as well have fun; if it feels good, do it. Get all the gusto you can get, you only go around once in life, you know? Where am I going when I die? Well, if evolution is true, you are just going to the grave and you are going to get recycled into a worm or a plant. But the Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” "
First off, evolution makes no claims as to your importance in the scheme of things, your basic position in the universe, or your morality. It also lays no claims to the afterlife. It's clear from reading the first two pages that not only has this Dr. Hovind blown evolutionary theory well out of it's true proportions, but is claiming that the Devil is responsible for it's formulation. These are the ridiculous meanderings of a Christian who's personal beliefs in something make the evolutionary theory into a great devil (simply becuase it poses alternate methods for the formulation of our species). Evolutionary theory is no more than an honest attempt at explaining our biological origins through observation and application of the scientific method; a thought process which I might mention has enabled this Dr. to create his electronic articles in the first place. Darwin's theory lays no claims to the metaphysical, the spiritual, or the theological aspects of life. It is, in any rational person's view, simply a theory to explain the origins of ourselves, and does not prove or disprove the existence of God. In fact it doesn't even take a stab at where the first life came from, that is something other theories are tryin to deal with.
"Macro evolution would say the dog and the rose had a common ancestor and the common ancestor was a rock. You wait long enough, the rock will turn into a dog and a rose"
No, actually that is entirely false. A rock is a rock, although it is true that a sedimentary rock can eventually be reconstituted into a metamorpich rock. But a rock is a rock, and whether it's a diamond formed under extreme pressure and time, or sandstone squished by only a bit of pressure over a bit of time, it's still a rock. DNA however, in it's infinite varation, CAN describe something as simple as a one celled organism or even oursleves. This is FACT, not evolution. The only contention is how this is brought about. Grace of God, or evolutionary theory?
Every point this guy argues is easily dismissable except for Big Bang theory (which is a double tough thing to gather evidence for, and which many scientists, even evolutionary theorists, deny). Which of course, has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolutionary theory, or any theory pertaining to the origins of life on this planet. You notice he has only one little paragraph in the first article concerning fossils, and makes absolutely no logical rebuttal or explanation for dinosaur existence. If they Earth is indeed only 4400 years old, why doesn't anyone remember them? There are existing cultures in the world pre-dating that figure by thousands of years, how does he explain that?
As for the second article, I only got through the first page before realizing this Doctor's arguments were based on very weak and incomplete science catering only to those who don't know anything about what he talks on, and don't want to learn more about it from a credible scientist. As for the conservation of angular momentum theory, that only applies to larger than atomic objects functioning on the space-time continuim that throw off debree, and who's debree isn't magnetically charged. However space-time didn't exist before Big Bang theory (it can't exist without mass), virtually all subatomic particles have magnetism and attraction variation (which allows for their interaction to change rotational direction), and conservation of angular momentum theory only holds true in relativistic physics. Quantum physics was responsible for the formulation of all mass in the universe; physics pertaining to atomic particles larger than the atom do not apply here.
On his mention that the timeline for homo sapiens' spread must have started about 4400 years ago, well in fact he's almost right. Humans exist in such numbers because at some point about 6000-7000 years ago, we lost our nomadic ways and began to farm and raise animals. Once we took the food and shelter equation of existence into our own control, the population started to grow exponentially and hasn't stopped since. Before that, it's well known that only about 15-30 humans could live in an area of 25 square miles (this number is the limit based upon natural food sources existing within that area, and the miles part is the limit because our ancestors only traveled on foot). And this says nothing of the fact that humans haven't lived here for billions of years, so the timeline for modern culture and populace is indeed much shorter than 4 billion years. Again, he's not really saying anything about why the Earth MUST be younger than that, he's just mixing up fact with fiction (like the Devil does, according to him) to make things sound bad for the scientists. Oh and here's another qoute from our beloved doctor...
"So, let’s look at a few more facts from science here. The galaxies are spinning. They are turning around. But the stars in the middle of the galaxies are going faster than the stars at the outside, which means if the galaxies were billions of years old, they would have lost their spiral shape and yet all of them are spiral shaped galaxies. So if their trying to tell you that stars are billions of years old, they are simply mistaken they cannot possibly be, they had to be created."
Not true at all, there are three different and common types of galaxies. In fact, the sprial galaxy is not the most common form. There are sprial, elliptical, and irregular shaped galaxies. Most actually fall into the irregular section, and guess what, they don't spin. In fact, it's becoming more and more clear that galaxy formation type has a lot to do with black holes, and spiral galaxies are formed by having a black hole in the center of the galaxy. Our milky way galaxy has one.
All this crap, about thre planets cooling (which is fact, and the reason Earth's surface is no longer plagued by constant volcanic eruptions), about Saturn's rings (which are formed from smashed up satellites, and is indeed becoming finer and finer over the milenia; but nothing stated disproves the thoeries as to how and when they were formed), about the drifting Moon (where he claims the Moon's proximity to the Earth makes life on land imposible a billion years ago; hey no kidding bud, but all very acient life was sea dwelling and wouldn't have been too troubled by the tides), and even about the Earth's slowing rotation. Hello, this guys doesn't know much about astronomy does he? The Earth's rotation is slowing because the Moon is getting farther away. The Moon's influence on Earth is profound even at it's current distance, and is in fact responsible for our lives on this planet. Without the influence of the Moon, Earth's rotational axis would not be stable, weather patterns would literally become cataclismic, and yes, we would not have any place to reliably live or find food. But for Earth's rotation to have ever stabilized, the Moon had to have been MUCH closer than it is now. And as it slowly creeps away, it does cause the Earth's rotation to slow. But not by anywhere near his estimate (a leap second every year and a half in his article is asking you to assume that means the day really does get longer by 1000th of a second every time around). This may have been printed in Astronomy magazine back in '92, but current observation reveals that about 2000 years ago the day was about 2 seconds longer than it is now. Again, we are talking about geological events and planetary motion here, which occurs only over a REALLY long time period.
Alright, I should shutup now. The point here is that I can easily debate and explain the things he doesn't accurately do (as in boy does that article need a re-write!), and I am no scientist. It would in fact only take about two years of univeristy study to realize these arguments are formed from the table scraps of modern scientific knowledge, and cite either innacurate or completely false information (I believe some has been "doctored" up for this article) to further his creationist belief. I also find it amusing that a Christian would spend so much time proselytizing that his Faith is True while using science to disprove science, and therefore uphold his world view. I ask this doctor, why is it so important to believe the Bible is a factual account of history? Does it make the Word any more believable, or lend credit to it's lessons? The nature of God and Man has nothing to do with Genesis's first verse, and you certainly don't need to take the stories of the Bible literally to become a devout Christian, or even to accept God's grace and enter the kingdom of Heaven. So why write all that when none of it truly pertains to your faith? Just know this, your faith is not supported by this argument, it is supported by your acceptance of God's Grace. This man's arguments appear to be poorly formed, poorly executed, and wholely ineffective if it's conversion he's trying to bring about. Historical fact has NOTHING to do with God.
Heep
03-20-2001, 06:15 PM
I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying about him. He is extremely biased, but then again, evolutionist scientists are as well. I'm also biased, and you are too. You began to read these articles with the evolutionary point of view. I assume you probably tryed to mentally disprove all he said as you read it. However, I also do the same thing when I read the arguments that an evolutionist proposes. Bias is a hard thing to break.
Dr. Hovind performs these seminars live to whoever requests them all over. He tries to be funny (usually not succeeding, not for me anyway). While trying to be funny he also exagerattes a lot. I don't believe that an evolutionist thinks that life came from a rock, but I very highly doubt he does either. I should have mentioned this when I posted these, my fault, but you have to make sure you recognize his attempts at humour.
As far as what you're saying about evolution, this got way beyond me a couple pages ago :). I've studied both creation and evolution quite extensively, but I don't have very much training or education in physics or quantum stuff.
You may want to pass on your post to him at [email protected]. He would be much much better at explaining (or rebutting) your post. Plus, if you can prove him wrong, he'll give you $250000 :D. Perhaps you could post any reply from him for us all to see...that would be great.
I'm gonna hang around here and continue to post, but, as I mentioned, I don't know too too much about the technical stuff. If you have any simple questions, feel free to ask :).
Oh, BTW...you are completely correct that one does not have to believe the Bible to become a Christian. Belief in the Bible does usually result from an acceptace of God's grace, however.
Anyway......continue on with the discussion...
Dr. Hovind performs these seminars live to whoever requests them all over. He tries to be funny (usually not succeeding, not for me anyway). While trying to be funny he also exagerattes a lot. I don't believe that an evolutionist thinks that life came from a rock, but I very highly doubt he does either. I should have mentioned this when I posted these, my fault, but you have to make sure you recognize his attempts at humour.
As far as what you're saying about evolution, this got way beyond me a couple pages ago :). I've studied both creation and evolution quite extensively, but I don't have very much training or education in physics or quantum stuff.
You may want to pass on your post to him at [email protected]. He would be much much better at explaining (or rebutting) your post. Plus, if you can prove him wrong, he'll give you $250000 :D. Perhaps you could post any reply from him for us all to see...that would be great.
I'm gonna hang around here and continue to post, but, as I mentioned, I don't know too too much about the technical stuff. If you have any simple questions, feel free to ask :).
Oh, BTW...you are completely correct that one does not have to believe the Bible to become a Christian. Belief in the Bible does usually result from an acceptace of God's grace, however.
Anyway......continue on with the discussion...
enzo@af
03-20-2001, 07:31 PM
I still haven't heard a good argument stating exactly why we must believe the bible. Anyone?
JD@af
03-20-2001, 07:43 PM
Dammit Tex!! Upstaging me before I even finish my rebuttal!!
Well I'll post it anyway when it's finished.....
Well I'll post it anyway when it's finished.....
TheMan5952
03-21-2001, 02:26 AM
damn, I just read all 7 pages of that.
I belive in the watchmaker theroy, that god created single celled organisims, then everything progressed from there.
Also has anyone heard of the Big Crunch Theroy? I can explain a lil.
I belive in the watchmaker theroy, that god created single celled organisims, then everything progressed from there.
Also has anyone heard of the Big Crunch Theroy? I can explain a lil.
Lizard King
03-21-2001, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by TheMan5952
damn, I just read all 7 pages of that.
I belive in the watchmaker theroy, that god created single celled organisims, then everything progressed from there.
Also has anyone heard of the Big Crunch Theroy? I can explain a lil.
This is just a friendly question, but WHY do you believe that? What made you decide that that was something worth believing?
Evolutionists, it seems, are open to new suggestions. We see evolution as a believable was of explaining things. Creationists seem to believe for believing sake. Its a nice story and all, but without any sound evidence, and with so much going against it - where is the reason to believe?
damn, I just read all 7 pages of that.
I belive in the watchmaker theroy, that god created single celled organisims, then everything progressed from there.
Also has anyone heard of the Big Crunch Theroy? I can explain a lil.
This is just a friendly question, but WHY do you believe that? What made you decide that that was something worth believing?
Evolutionists, it seems, are open to new suggestions. We see evolution as a believable was of explaining things. Creationists seem to believe for believing sake. Its a nice story and all, but without any sound evidence, and with so much going against it - where is the reason to believe?
Heep
03-21-2001, 03:52 PM
Lizard King...I know what you mean. However, you believe in what evidence you have, you believe it to be sound and therefore true. If your evidence was proof, then there wouldn't be any reason to believe in anything but evolution. But it's not. Neither is creation evidence. However, there is probly about an equal amount of evidence for creation that I believe to be sound. There is even some evidence that could support either theory, depending on how you take it. Constants, or variables? It all depends on how you see it. (I'm probly making sense to no one but myself :D) That's also why these arguments are almost never ending, since different people carry a different perspective on things.
If we surgically switched our perspectives for a day, I would review the evidence for both and probly come up with a belief in evolution, vice versa for you.
As far as the watchmaker theory, it is viable if you believe in God, but not if you believe the Bible. It conflicts with God's words about His creation that are in the Bible, and it basically says that the flood did not occur, the first 11 chapters of Genesis did not occur, and any reference to the flood or the first 11 chapters by God either didn't occur, or they were lies.
Anyway, aside from what it may seem, I'm not trying to get you to believe Creation. I'm simply trying to open your minds to different points of view, so that you (and creationists too) aren't simply blind sheep that never question what you've been told all your life, evolution or creation.
Enzo, as far as why you must believe the Bible...I'll get right back to you (probly later tonite) about that. I'm going to my youth group tonite, I can ask either one of my leaders or even my pastor about that and get you a good reason. :)
If we surgically switched our perspectives for a day, I would review the evidence for both and probly come up with a belief in evolution, vice versa for you.
As far as the watchmaker theory, it is viable if you believe in God, but not if you believe the Bible. It conflicts with God's words about His creation that are in the Bible, and it basically says that the flood did not occur, the first 11 chapters of Genesis did not occur, and any reference to the flood or the first 11 chapters by God either didn't occur, or they were lies.
Anyway, aside from what it may seem, I'm not trying to get you to believe Creation. I'm simply trying to open your minds to different points of view, so that you (and creationists too) aren't simply blind sheep that never question what you've been told all your life, evolution or creation.
Enzo, as far as why you must believe the Bible...I'll get right back to you (probly later tonite) about that. I'm going to my youth group tonite, I can ask either one of my leaders or even my pastor about that and get you a good reason. :)
TheMan5952
03-21-2001, 09:27 PM
OK, I belive it, I'm not sure why, I just belive it. I don't have to explain why I belive, mainly because I'm not sure why myself.
Maybe it's because I never really knew anything about my religion until the past couple months. So just reading things and thinking about it and everything I just thought to my self and came up with what I belive. I'm sorry if that bugs you, but that why I think that. I still belive that we are one big experiment by god just to see how long we can last.
Maybe it's because I never really knew anything about my religion until the past couple months. So just reading things and thinking about it and everything I just thought to my self and came up with what I belive. I'm sorry if that bugs you, but that why I think that. I still belive that we are one big experiment by god just to see how long we can last.
enzo@af
03-21-2001, 10:44 PM
I'm deistic because I trust evolution...yet I think there must be some greater power that created us, or more correctly created the universe...we were a byproduct. I may be wrong, but knowing that there is something greater than me and that there is a reason for life is uplifting....
The religious man is not afraid of death because he has something to look forward to...the atheist fears death because it's the end.
The religious man is not afraid of death because he has something to look forward to...the atheist fears death because it's the end.
Adam
03-22-2001, 04:06 PM
you guys don't know a big discussion.. check this out!
http://www.guitar.com/discuss/readmsg.asp?showdates=&messageID=59352 1,638 posts, 68 pages!
I stopped since I was just putting myself worse :D , but i was Adam01
http://www.guitar.com/discuss/readmsg.asp?showdates=&messageID=59352 1,638 posts, 68 pages!
I stopped since I was just putting myself worse :D , but i was Adam01
Heep
03-22-2001, 07:31 PM
TheMan: Good for you! You the man! You just summed up what I was trying to say in about two sentences. As much as I've reviewed all the evidence, and how much I believe that creation is scientific, I also believe it because I believe it. Why is Weezer my fav. band? Others have great music too, I just like Weezer. Why is my fav car a 512TR (this week anyway :))? Cause I like it.
JD@af
03-24-2001, 03:07 PM
By the way, I have NOT forgotten about this thread, or my rebuttal. It is just a large piece of work, and some things cannot be rushed.
Adam
03-26-2001, 03:13 PM
as soon as i get a little more time i will say why i believe etc. I haven't forgotten either :wave:
Reaper
03-27-2001, 10:57 PM
I believe we all are bred to think in a certain way. I believe that the "ones that rule" twist the way we think. They do this via TV, radio, and newspapers. TV is the worst of all. It has twisted our thinking so much we don't know any better...
IMHO, the Bible is a work of fiction, God and Jesus are figments of our imagination, used to explain something that is unknown to us, like creation, and death. It seems there has to be reason behind just about everything. If we don't understand it then it doesn't exist. We think we know everything, we think we are always right. Well we aren't. We are what we are...
For all we know Aliens created us and we are their experiment. Like I said, TV has twisted our way of thinking so much we don't know what to think other than what "they" tell us...
Call me crazy...
IMHO, the Bible is a work of fiction, God and Jesus are figments of our imagination, used to explain something that is unknown to us, like creation, and death. It seems there has to be reason behind just about everything. If we don't understand it then it doesn't exist. We think we know everything, we think we are always right. Well we aren't. We are what we are...
For all we know Aliens created us and we are their experiment. Like I said, TV has twisted our way of thinking so much we don't know what to think other than what "they" tell us...
Call me crazy...
Bean Bandit
03-28-2001, 10:49 AM
What ever you belive you should enjoy your life anyway 'cause it's a once in a lifetime chance even if you'll be reincarnated 'cause you want remember your last life:bandit:
Adam
03-28-2001, 07:12 PM
ok your crazy:D
:wave:
but you are a little twisted
ppl made up evolution because they didn't want to accept anything to do with God. they turn their backs on him and dive into the world
:wave:
but you are a little twisted
ppl made up evolution because they didn't want to accept anything to do with God. they turn their backs on him and dive into the world
LakeMountLude
03-28-2001, 09:54 PM
im a big believer and god and heaven.. but a popular deist belife which is what i believe is that god made the universe, mad a unique set of physical laws and quantum laws and then pretty much hit the 'run' buttom and let things happen on their own!
enzo@af
03-29-2001, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Adam
ppl made up evolution because they didn't want to accept anything to do with God. they turn their backs on him and dive into the world
I actually laughed when I read that. Then, I went into the other room, got my mormon friend, and had him read it. He laughed to.
People do turn their back on Christ and God, and as a Christian I dislike it. I can't stand seeing my sister, or my 2 year old nephew not going to church and not being saved. It's horrible. But, you're turning your back on a tsunami of evidence supporting and proving evolution (as a force, not a means of creation). You're not paying attention to the peppered moth in england during the industrial revolution, or the fact that our little toes are slowly evolving...I mean, "magically going" away.
Evolution does not claim to say where all of life started....sure, evolutionary scientists claim that it came from small molecules in volcanic pools (see this month's scientific american....WONDERFUL article) and slowly grew to animals like us over millions of years, but evolution says nothing about the origin of life. People, please remember that because you just look silly using that as your only means of disproving evolution (not you though, Adam).
ppl made up evolution because they didn't want to accept anything to do with God. they turn their backs on him and dive into the world
I actually laughed when I read that. Then, I went into the other room, got my mormon friend, and had him read it. He laughed to.
People do turn their back on Christ and God, and as a Christian I dislike it. I can't stand seeing my sister, or my 2 year old nephew not going to church and not being saved. It's horrible. But, you're turning your back on a tsunami of evidence supporting and proving evolution (as a force, not a means of creation). You're not paying attention to the peppered moth in england during the industrial revolution, or the fact that our little toes are slowly evolving...I mean, "magically going" away.
Evolution does not claim to say where all of life started....sure, evolutionary scientists claim that it came from small molecules in volcanic pools (see this month's scientific american....WONDERFUL article) and slowly grew to animals like us over millions of years, but evolution says nothing about the origin of life. People, please remember that because you just look silly using that as your only means of disproving evolution (not you though, Adam).
Heep
03-29-2001, 07:47 PM
I most definately believe in evolution...micro evolution. Otherwise, everybody would be the same race, and there would only be one breed of dog, etc. I just have trouble understanding one species changing to another. I said it in the Evolution forum, but I'll say it here too.
The main reason I believe creation: I have trouble grasping the theory that we appeared by chance...just look at the complexity of the eye, brain, and even foot, and how they all work together so perfectly.
BTW: I'm moving to the evolution forum for my evolution related thoughts...this one's the heaven forum....
The main reason I believe creation: I have trouble grasping the theory that we appeared by chance...just look at the complexity of the eye, brain, and even foot, and how they all work together so perfectly.
BTW: I'm moving to the evolution forum for my evolution related thoughts...this one's the heaven forum....
LakeMountLude
03-29-2001, 11:10 PM
not true! people dont really evolve.. the better word is adapt.. natural adaptation and selection are the keys.. black people are black because of the way they lived for so long.. they adapted to the heat.. same goes for everyone.. there is evidence of evolution like tailbones etc but i feel that is because god made us all.. argue with him :)
Lizard King
03-30-2001, 12:20 PM
You're not paying attention to the peppered moth in england during the industrial revolution, or the fact that our little toes are slowly evolving...I mean, "magically going" away
I've heard about the moth, but whats that about toes?
LakeMountLude: Remember, evolution takes a LONG time. The Earth has been here for millions and millions of years.
When you think that 1 million is a thousand thousand, and think about how long ago 1 thousand years was, it puts it into perspective a little more.
I know humans haven't been on Earth for millions of years but they've been here long enough.
I've heard about the moth, but whats that about toes?
LakeMountLude: Remember, evolution takes a LONG time. The Earth has been here for millions and millions of years.
When you think that 1 million is a thousand thousand, and think about how long ago 1 thousand years was, it puts it into perspective a little more.
I know humans haven't been on Earth for millions of years but they've been here long enough.
LakeMountLude
03-30-2001, 01:48 PM
Okay a simple example. Crocadiles and Roaches have been around since the dinosaurs, why do they still look the same? Why haven't they evolved? A simple answer would be the harder skin that both have developed, but in reality it is adaptation!!! The moths adapted not evolved.. Man I had a class that taught both these subjects but I have forgotten a lot.. once i find my notes ill post more..
Lizard King
03-30-2001, 03:06 PM
Crocodiles and roaches are 'perfect', as in, they are perfectly suited to their environments. I can't remember the ins and outs but I've read about this stuff.
What would be the difference between adapting and evolving?
What would be the difference between adapting and evolving?
Heep
03-30-2001, 09:37 PM
Adaptation = Micro-evolution = Adaptation
Macro-evolution (what most relate to the word evolution) is something different (changing species)
Anyway, I guess we'll just all have to die to find out who's right :)
Bonus for creationists:
If you and I both die, and evolution is correct, we die and never live again.
If you and I both die, and creation is correct, I feel good forever, and you feel stupid because of what you believed :D
Macro-evolution (what most relate to the word evolution) is something different (changing species)
Anyway, I guess we'll just all have to die to find out who's right :)
Bonus for creationists:
If you and I both die, and evolution is correct, we die and never live again.
If you and I both die, and creation is correct, I feel good forever, and you feel stupid because of what you believed :D
LakeMountLude
03-30-2001, 10:40 PM
haha yeah ill go with that... i mean cockaroaches etc made it through the ice age etc and they are still the same so those damn bastards were doing something right lol... but oh well like he said we are just going to have to die...
ANOTHER IDEA: I think also that god is testing us.. He knows that if he just came straight out and said he exists that it would be too easy to just accept us etc.. so he set up his master plan of "evolution" a way of testing peoples faith! that is my new renowned theorem :) hehe damn im smart lol.. j/k
ANOTHER IDEA: I think also that god is testing us.. He knows that if he just came straight out and said he exists that it would be too easy to just accept us etc.. so he set up his master plan of "evolution" a way of testing peoples faith! that is my new renowned theorem :) hehe damn im smart lol.. j/k
Adam
03-31-2001, 04:52 PM
adaption vs. evolution
NATURAL SELECTION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM ANY FORM OF EVOLUTION
micro-evolution is evolution that most ppl believe -- things evolve over millions of years
----remember all evidence points to a 6,000 or so year old earth
macro evolution is where ppl believe monkeys gave birth to cavemen -- and so on and so on. That is why they believe there are no 'missing links'
--the peppered moth was not evolution, it was natural selection, or survival of the fittest.
NATURAL SELECTION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM ANY FORM OF EVOLUTION
micro-evolution is evolution that most ppl believe -- things evolve over millions of years
----remember all evidence points to a 6,000 or so year old earth
macro evolution is where ppl believe monkeys gave birth to cavemen -- and so on and so on. That is why they believe there are no 'missing links'
--the peppered moth was not evolution, it was natural selection, or survival of the fittest.
LakeMountLude
03-31-2001, 05:27 PM
thank you that is what i have been trying to say! actually i think it is a lil older than 6000 years old.. i think the bible even says so.. hmm im a lil shady in that area..
Lizard King
04-01-2001, 07:28 AM
----remember all evidence points to a 6,000 or so year old earth
I'd love to see this evidence.
I'd love to see this evidence.
LakeMountLude
04-01-2001, 10:35 AM
well actually he is sorta right there is evidence that points to it.. ill see what i can find out...
enzo@af
04-01-2001, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Adam
NATURAL SELECTION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM ANY FORM OF EVOLUTION
I see you've been educated from "the book of dipshits" by John C. Dumbass.
Natural selection, survival of the fittest, all that stuff are "evolutionary forces". They are the exact causes of evolution. If you're talking about the theory that all life derived from single celled organisms, that's something different (A different part of the evolutionary theory).
NATURAL SELECTION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM ANY FORM OF EVOLUTION
I see you've been educated from "the book of dipshits" by John C. Dumbass.
Natural selection, survival of the fittest, all that stuff are "evolutionary forces". They are the exact causes of evolution. If you're talking about the theory that all life derived from single celled organisms, that's something different (A different part of the evolutionary theory).
Adam
04-02-2001, 04:12 PM
nooooooooooo..
I am just talking about the fact that if you put a huge cat and a little cat inside a container, the huge one is probably going to win if they fight.... RIGHT!
I am just talking about the fact that if you put a huge cat and a little cat inside a container, the huge one is probably going to win if they fight.... RIGHT!
enzo@af
04-02-2001, 06:58 PM
Exactly. So, if you put a million large cats and a million small cats on the planet, the large cats will have a better chance at surviving than the little cats. Thus, over time the frequency of large cats will rise (from 50% to say, 80%). Right there, an evolutionary force.
Now, this might seem like it means nothing other than the obvious...exactly. When applied to larger settings, multiple traits, varied ecosystems, things change. Large cats appear in one system, but small cats appear in another. The large cats for some reason have blue eyes (maybe it makes them less visible to predators in that area), and in the other location small cats get green eyes. Enough of these differences and you have two breeds of cats. Over time, with continued seperation, mutations and natural selection will cause the two breeds no to be able to produce viable offspring....SPECIATION! It's a miracle! No, it's just logic, chance, and millions of years.
Now, this might seem like it means nothing other than the obvious...exactly. When applied to larger settings, multiple traits, varied ecosystems, things change. Large cats appear in one system, but small cats appear in another. The large cats for some reason have blue eyes (maybe it makes them less visible to predators in that area), and in the other location small cats get green eyes. Enough of these differences and you have two breeds of cats. Over time, with continued seperation, mutations and natural selection will cause the two breeds no to be able to produce viable offspring....SPECIATION! It's a miracle! No, it's just logic, chance, and millions of years.
LakeMountLude
04-02-2001, 09:06 PM
here is what scientists see today... a small beaked bird (bird #1) fly's to an island where it his forced to eat worms out of a tree, so it eventually devlops a longer beak (bird #2) over a short period of time... then the bird (bird #2) fly's to a different island where eventually its offspring develops even longer beaks to eat the necter out of flowers.. so necessarily bird #1 did not evolve... instead bird 1 adapted to its envioronment which then would make bird 2... then when that birds offspring flew to the other island adaptation happened again.. not three different types of birds, but instead the same bird with different adaptations!
enzo@af
04-02-2001, 10:07 PM
Yes, exactly. Lets use the same theory in cats now. We shall join them at this same point...all the same cat (common ancestor), but with different adaptations. cat 1 is now a common house cat, cat two is some sort of wild cat. Now, the cats can still mate with each other, yet because of cat two's predators, the stronger, larger cats survive more often than the smaller ones. Size is genetic in this situation. We'll also say that because of the environment, cat two's that are orange survive more than brown or black cats, and those that are orange with black stripes survive even more than the orange ones.....Do you see what will most likely happen, given the conditions are somewhat constant, and mating is random? It's pretty easy...10000 or so years later you got yourself tigers and tabbys.
I made that example up...for all I know a common house cat could mount up on a tiger and have some f'd up little kittens, but the point is that you now have two species! Woohoo!
Listen, you guys don't have to be threatened because evolution somehow contradicts what the bible says. It's okay to just accept that this sort of thing happens and could possibly account for the wide variety of animals and plants on our earth. I believe in God, yet I'm not stubborn enough to dismiss this sort of blatantly obvious logic.
I made that example up...for all I know a common house cat could mount up on a tiger and have some f'd up little kittens, but the point is that you now have two species! Woohoo!
Listen, you guys don't have to be threatened because evolution somehow contradicts what the bible says. It's okay to just accept that this sort of thing happens and could possibly account for the wide variety of animals and plants on our earth. I believe in God, yet I'm not stubborn enough to dismiss this sort of blatantly obvious logic.
LakeMountLude
04-03-2001, 01:17 PM
yuup, preciesly my point.. you thought that up too huh?? me 2! hehe i didnt know you did (if you posted it somewhere) but hey great minds think alike!! :D :D :cool: :cool:
Heep
04-03-2001, 06:34 PM
I agree whole heartedly, Enzo. However, I just hesitate to use the word species insted of adaptation. Most people consider "species" as "cat", "horse", or "dog", not "lion", "tiger", and"house cat." See what I mean? Yes, a lion is different from a house cat, but they are both feline. Therefore, if you mention something changing from one species to another over time, they assume you mean feline to canine, not house cat to lion.
enzo@af
04-03-2001, 07:35 PM
I can see how the differences between "cat" and "turtle" are obviously greater than between "cat" and "tiger", but the same principles apply. A generic mammalian creature gets seperated. One isolated group develops into something completely different than the other. Of course, all of this is done by the simple mechanisms of evolution we've seen earlier (natural selection, mutation....).
It's hard to accept that somehow amoebas evolved into something as complex as humans, but it's based on simple, logical rules. Personally, I see it being an incredible feet, but I just don't accept that God made us, made every single of the gagillions of species out there, and then messed up many of our scientific methods (carbon dating, geological evidence, plate tectonics...) just to confuse us.
It's hard to accept that somehow amoebas evolved into something as complex as humans, but it's based on simple, logical rules. Personally, I see it being an incredible feet, but I just don't accept that God made us, made every single of the gagillions of species out there, and then messed up many of our scientific methods (carbon dating, geological evidence, plate tectonics...) just to confuse us.
Heep
04-03-2001, 07:40 PM
Yes, it would be quite a feat...but actually feasible if given millions or billions of years. I just don't believe it was, therefore making this evolution even harder for me to believe. Also...read my carbon dating post in "Evolution"
Bean Bandit
04-04-2001, 07:55 AM
Note: If we compare a wolfs DNA with that of a poodle will find the most similaritys than compared to every other race.:bandit:
Lizard King
04-04-2001, 01:51 PM
Dogs and cats have adapted very quickly due to the selective breeding by humans.
Maybe we can look at it as evolution speeded up and man made...
Maybe we can look at it as evolution speeded up and man made...
enzo@af
04-04-2001, 01:56 PM
but evolution nonetheless.:cool:
Adam
04-04-2001, 02:40 PM
I DON'T agree wholeheartedly... yes, the stronger survive, BUT>>>> the stronger doesn't evolve, nor does the weaker. NONE DO! it's just strong=better chance of survival. weak=less chance... NONE EVOLVE
;)
;)
Dimex
04-04-2001, 09:16 PM
you've changed the gene pool to increase frequencies of stronger genes...evolution right there. It's not speciation, but keep doing that same thing for millions of years and you'll have a plethora of species (and maybe a few different genuses, orders, and all of 'em).
Heep
04-05-2001, 11:14 AM
Wolves and poodles are both canine though (I'm pretty sure, anyway...), so of course they are goind to have similar DNA characteristics.
I still can't see how a turtle could lose it's shell, grow fur, completely change it's look and habitat to become a cat, or any other interspecies change. Maybe I believe in creation just because I can't get my head around evolution being possible...
I still can't see how a turtle could lose it's shell, grow fur, completely change it's look and habitat to become a cat, or any other interspecies change. Maybe I believe in creation just because I can't get my head around evolution being possible...
Bean Bandit
04-09-2001, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Heep
Wolves and poodles are both canine though (I'm pretty sure, anyway...), so of course they are goind to have similar DNA characteristics.
The Point is that a poodle is more similar than other dog races like huskeys or alsatian:bandit:
Wolves and poodles are both canine though (I'm pretty sure, anyway...), so of course they are goind to have similar DNA characteristics.
The Point is that a poodle is more similar than other dog races like huskeys or alsatian:bandit:
Towlie
12-16-2001, 08:04 PM
which came first? the chicken or the egg?
now shut the fuck up u can argue both sides til ur blue in the face but this is a game that doesnt end, its like lamb chops, that fucking song just doesnt end!!!!!!!!!!!
now shut the fuck up u can argue both sides til ur blue in the face but this is a game that doesnt end, its like lamb chops, that fucking song just doesnt end!!!!!!!!!!!
whttrshpunk
12-25-2001, 12:48 PM
I find this whole argument ridiculous. Where do I begin.
First of all, NOBODY has EVER witnessed ANY species changing or even adapting! It's never been proven it just sounds like a good idea. Secondly, there is NO sound evidence that the earth is millions and billions of years old. It's probably not even 20,000 years old! I was reading a so called scientific little story with timeline about evolution once...and during the time that fish were supposedly speciating and evolving, there wasn't even any water on the earth according to the timeline! I found that especially amusing. I'll think of some more stuff later, but right now it's time for Christmas dinner. mmmmmm :D
First of all, NOBODY has EVER witnessed ANY species changing or even adapting! It's never been proven it just sounds like a good idea. Secondly, there is NO sound evidence that the earth is millions and billions of years old. It's probably not even 20,000 years old! I was reading a so called scientific little story with timeline about evolution once...and during the time that fish were supposedly speciating and evolving, there wasn't even any water on the earth according to the timeline! I found that especially amusing. I'll think of some more stuff later, but right now it's time for Christmas dinner. mmmmmm :D
Steel
12-25-2001, 04:00 PM
Now, I want people to explain to me Buddha, Zeus, Hera, all the rest of them. Were the Greeks completley wrong? Did they die and go to heaven to find there there was only one god, by the name of "God"? I'm sure all those millions of greeks felt pretty stupid then huh. Or did they? Who's to say there there is one "GOD" because the bible says so. Oh well, the bible was written by people who "God" talked to, so it HAS be true. Because those men said that God told them to write the bible.
You know what? Zeus right now is telling me (I swear! im not kidding!) That all you christians are wrong. That Zeus is the main god, but not to mess with his brothers and sisters either. Don't believe me? Well i don't believe you. Im going to hell then, you say? Hades says i'm fine, and he'll see you when Thanatos takes you to his house, if you can make it by Cerebres.
Im not afraid of God, or hell, because Zeus said there is no God, and im set for Olympus.
I hope I've made my point clear enough.
You know what? Zeus right now is telling me (I swear! im not kidding!) That all you christians are wrong. That Zeus is the main god, but not to mess with his brothers and sisters either. Don't believe me? Well i don't believe you. Im going to hell then, you say? Hades says i'm fine, and he'll see you when Thanatos takes you to his house, if you can make it by Cerebres.
Im not afraid of God, or hell, because Zeus said there is no God, and im set for Olympus.
I hope I've made my point clear enough.
Towlie
12-25-2001, 05:39 PM
niiiiiiiiiiice reply, Hail Zeus!
taranaki
12-25-2001, 07:59 PM
A fascinating read...thanks to all concerned.To argue about heaven/hell one must argue the existence of supernature,and to do that,one must understand and accept the evolution of spiritual belief.Then you have to decide how much of modern spiritual belief has evolved from propaganda,and how much is hyperbole.The theologians handbooks(Bible,Koran etc) are vast and complex fusions of parable, hyperbole and doctrine,it is unsurprising that with so many different versions of "the truth"(what is truth - another huge subject)that we choose our own eclectic vision to believe in.
Unless of course you were raised to blindly follow,but that's another story.
Unless of course you were raised to blindly follow,but that's another story.
brads94accord
12-25-2001, 11:04 PM
well i hope y'all know that darwin took back all that evolution stuff he spent his whole life studying right be fore he died and got saved. now he is with the lord in heaven. it doesn't matter how bad of a sin you've committed, jesus died on the cross for your sins. we are all sinners, the only perfect person is the lord. if you accept him as your savior you will go to heaven. all these people think that if you are good in life you will go to heaven, thats not true, theres more to it than that, do what i just stated and you will go to heaven. anyways, im out
Steel
12-26-2001, 12:33 AM
Nope, you're going to Hades, because you're a sinner for not believing in the almighty Zeus! All hail the almighty ZEUS!
OisinT
12-26-2001, 01:48 AM
when this thread gets to 10pages we're gonna have to close it... just thougt I'd let you know :D
:finger:
:finger:
Steel
12-26-2001, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by OisinT
when this thread gets to 10pages we're gonna have to close it... just thougt I'd let you know :D
:finger:
Why's that? Zeus COMMANDS you to not close this thread at 10 pages, or else be veeeery wary next time you go to the sea.. cause Poseiden's sharpening that trident just for you!
Steel - (Stalus) God of typos.
when this thread gets to 10pages we're gonna have to close it... just thougt I'd let you know :D
:finger:
Why's that? Zeus COMMANDS you to not close this thread at 10 pages, or else be veeeery wary next time you go to the sea.. cause Poseiden's sharpening that trident just for you!
Steel - (Stalus) God of typos.
YogsVR4
12-27-2001, 04:53 PM
Wait - I thought Zues was doing Allah up the ass and was to busy to care how long this thread got. Thank goodness God doesnt care much about us down here. I Bet he's quite amused at how time and effort some worship him and how load and obnoxious others are at proclaiming he doesnt exist.
There - that should get more people into a tizzy.
There - that should get more people into a tizzy.
Bean Bandit
12-27-2001, 07:05 PM
:evillaugh:evillaugh:evillaugh
Steel
12-27-2001, 11:20 PM
you're right, yogs. zeus and allah do have a little *thing* going...its kinda cute, actaully.
Magus
02-05-2002, 08:46 PM
If you prove God then you will not disprove evolution
Then if you prove evolution you will not disprove God.
Therfore: Disproving god SHALL disprove evolution and vice versa.
Disagree? ME TO - There are many animals that deify evolution.
IE: animals that would evolve therefore killing themselves; no more evolving. Except the animals exsist today.
Disproving God will Not prove evolution. Why are you trying so hard?
Then if you prove evolution you will not disprove God.
Therfore: Disproving god SHALL disprove evolution and vice versa.
Disagree? ME TO - There are many animals that deify evolution.
IE: animals that would evolve therefore killing themselves; no more evolving. Except the animals exsist today.
Disproving God will Not prove evolution. Why are you trying so hard?
fritz_269
02-06-2002, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Magus
...There are many animals that deify evolution. IE: animals that would evolve therefore killing themselves; no more evolving. Except the animals exsist today.
Interesting typo... :) (bold is mine)
You want to give an example of your id est?
:cool:
...There are many animals that deify evolution. IE: animals that would evolve therefore killing themselves; no more evolving. Except the animals exsist today.
Interesting typo... :) (bold is mine)
You want to give an example of your id est?
:cool:
Damien
02-09-2002, 08:31 PM
I think everyone should believe in something beyond being thrown into the ground and having all these creatures crawling inside of you and eating what's left of you. :apuke: Believing in reincarnation is better than nothing.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026